Guest blogger Sukhmani Khorana interviewed New Delhi novelist Manju Kapur for Kill Your Darlings at Adelaide Writers’ Week.
When I first read Manju Kapur’s Difficult Daughters in 2006, I had just submitted an Honours thesis in Media and English. I realised it wasn’t very Indian of me to be pursuing a qualification at an overseas university that was not remotely related to medicine, science, engineering, accounting, law or management. Nor was it very feminine of me to crave financial and emotional independence over the security blanket of a bourgeois upbringing. And, worst of all, being an Indian national wasn’t proof enough of my fluency in English – despite thinking and feeling in a hybrid version of the language, I would have to pass an IELTS test.
Reading Difficult Daughters was a simultaneously familiar and removed experience. Set against the backdrop of the partition saga that divided India and Pakistan into two independent sovereign nations in 1947, it is both a love story and a coming of age tale. I had heard mention of the violence surrounding the historical event from the maternal side of my family, which had migrated from Lahore to Amritsar, crossing over to the Indian end of the divided province of Punjab. The central character of the novel, Virmati, is based on Kapur’s own mother, who was a difficult daughter living in a joint Hindu household in Amritsar. The family’s tenant, a progressive (and married) professor, fell for her independence and interest in education. Needless to say, her family was hostile towards the situation, and the state of the nation mirrored this hostility.
In reading Difficult Daughters, I was surprised to learn that difficult Indian daughters are not a 21st century phenomenon. Indian women were proactive during the independence movement, and entered public and political life before many of their western counterparts. Of late, they have begun to voice their concerns on the global tide entering India, and its impact on gender and family relations. Notable figures in cinema include Mira Nair, Deepa Mehta and Aparna Sen, while their literary equivalents are Arundhati Roy, Kiran Desai, Manju Kapur, and numerous others. I looked forward to interviewing a role model of sorts during her visit for Adelaide Writers’ Week. Had she been a difficult daughter too?
SK: I read a piece by you in last weekend’s SA Weekend magazine, in which you stated that the decade you started writing, that is the 1990s, was one of change for both India and your own literary ambitions.
MK: Yes. In addition to the economic boom that India experienced at the time, it was also a great period for IWE (Indian Writing in English). It was Salman Rushdie who, in the 1980s, opened the floodgates, and several others like Vikram Seth, Amitav Ghosh, Arundhati Roy followed.
SK: Has the boom lasted?
MK: Well, Indian writers in English are still sought after, as is evidenced by the recent success of Kiran Desai and Aravind Adiga. However, it has become rare to get big advances for your book.
SK: Has the writing itself changed?
MK: In terms of the literary work, Indian writing in English has become more confident and more likely to use Indian idiom. This is unlike the days of say, a writer like RK Narayan, who described Indian life beautifully, but did not use native words or terms. But in public and educational settings, Indian English is not as grammatically correct as it used to be.
SK: I’ve noticed that too. The Shakespearean and Dickensian English that I grew up with in a Catholic School in India is very different from the functional reports that my younger siblings had to write.
MK: Yes, there is definitely a generation gap. Having said that, literary courses in India are flourishing. I have been teaching Literature at Delhi University’s Miranda College for the last 30 years, and have seen the numbers rise. Most students enter with the hope of bettering their English. The success of Rushdie and others has also created countless writing aspirants.
SK: Speaking of writerly aspirations, how did your first novel, Difficult Daughters, come about?
MK: Most of my novels start with a theme, and then I build the story and characters around that to reflect the theme. So, in the case of Difficult Daughters, I had this image of a 40 year-old divorced woman, living in a DDA [Delhi Development Authority] flat, and teaching at a college. I wanted to explore why it is with educated women that their emotional lives are so messed up.
SK: So that character is the daughter Ida narrating her mother Virmati’s tale?
MK: Yes, she becomes the framing device through which the story of Virmati is told. It is my mother’s tale that later became much more important for me to tell in my first novel. She was not very forthcoming at first, as she regrets being a source of trauma for her parents. There was also the trauma surrounding the events of partition. Most of my older relatives were not very keen on raking up the past, but I felt it was necessary to share these stories and talk about the grief left in their wake. For me, the Eureka moment in the research process came when I started going through archived editions of The Tribune newspaper. It was then that the story of my ancestors, of their daily lives and the political events of the time became real for me. They became so real I had to write about them.
SK: Do you think that like Virmati, modern Indian women still struggle with juggling familial roles and education? I thought that in eventually marrying the professor and moving to Delhi, Virmati got what she always wanted, yet lost some of her spirit.
MK: She did lose something of herself. Women of my mother’s generation had a more vocal public voice because the nation’s struggle for independence gave them a legitimate cause. Now, Indian women do not appear to be as vocal in political affairs. However, a number of educated women these days have more earning power.
SK: And have these educated, working women succeeded in keeping their careers while upholding traditional Indian values?
MK: Well, women’s struggle in India is an ongoing one. There are no black and white winners and there is constant negotiation with the family setting.
SK: There is negotiation of a very different kind in your last book, The Immigrant.
MK: I always say that The Immigrant is my least ‘family’ book because the rest are filled with joint families and lots of characters. In this one, it is mostly just the main character, Nina, and the man she marries, Ananda.
SK: Is it the least family-oriented of your books because it is set outside of India?
MK: Yes, the phenomenon of the NRI, or the Non-Resident Indian, has become widely known and discussed in India. I experienced being away from India when I was a student in Canada in my youth, so I wanted to write about it. I recall feeling alienated and being nostalgic for foods and objects that I took for granted at home. I chose to return to India.
My discussion with Manju continued into the conservative time warps of first generation migrants, the extravaganzas of Indian weddings and the clear blue skies of Adelaide. There was no longer a clearly defined interviewer or interviewee as Manju chatted about her daughters, both pursuing PhDs in the United States, and I shared my own just-submitted doctorate story. Unlike her, I am choosing to remain an NRI. At the same time, I respect and admire Manju and others of her generation for continuing to negotiate, continuing to write, and continuing to both Indianise and internationalise the English language.
Read a review of Manju Kapur’s Home at the Guardian. Read a review of The Immigrant at the Telegraph.
* With sincere thanks to my friends Puja Jain (for helping me to get in contact with Manju Kapur) and Prithvi Varatharajan (for alerting me to the Kill Your Darlings launch in Adelaide).
Sukhmani Khorana has recently submitted a PhD thesis and documentary on cinema of the Indian diaspora. She is currently teaching at the University of Adelaide.













Prithvi · 10:29 pm 15th Mar 10 ·
Hey, I know you!
I particularly enjoyed your introductory reflections on the I/P Partition and your linking it to partitions within families, around the so called “difficult daughters”. I wanted MK to say more after this – “I wanted to explore why it is with educated women that their emotional lives are so messed up” – which seems a huge and general observation to let hanging, but I guess the elaboration of that’s in her novel?
By the way would you recommend Kiran Desai’s “The Inheritance of Loss”? I gave it as a birthday present a few months ago, without having read it. Maybe I should ask for it back…
Jane Stadler · 12:12 pm 18th Jun 10 ·
Hi Prithvi,
Did you give a paper at the 2009 Work in Progress Conference at UQ on Cosmopolitanism in contemporary Indian English Poetry? If so, please email me because we’d love to include your paper in an anthology related to the conference.
Regards,
Jane
Prithvi · 10:35 pm 15th Mar 10 ·
P.s. Good interview!
Sukhmani · 12:11 am 16th Mar 10 ·
Thanks for your comment on the introduction. I know what you mean about leaving the educated women with emotional issues comment hanging – I could have asked her to elaborate, but fear there wouldn’t be as much interesting women’s writing if there was a straight answer.
As for Kiran Desai, I didn’t enjoy “The Inheritance of Loss” as much as I do her mother Anita Desai’s work. Highly recommend ‘Fasting, Feasting’.
Maryanne Khan · 12:08 pm 18th Mar 10 ·
I found it interesting to read that writing in English appears in the same discussion as educated women being ‘messed up’ emotionally. Surely these two things are related?
By what standard are we judging ‘English’? Each time I travel to S Asia (Pakistan) I am struck by the language still current there that has disappeared from say, Australian English. I find S Asian English to be far richer than most other versions of English (and I was stunned to find my nephew actually parsing sentences in high school.)
MK mentions that current Indian English authors are now using local idiom. Yes of course, because Indian English is their language and they may use it as they see fit! As it best suits their experience of their world.
Which draws me to the thing I saw underlying this whole discussion that perhaps rests with an old remnant of lingering colonialism (English as Other) and pre-feminism which entertains the idea that educated women are also ‘Other’ and therefore prone to being ‘emotionally messed up’.
Educated Indian women writing in English are writing in their own speech and they’re no more messed up than any woman in any part of the world who is educated and being compared to men. In calling the book ‘Difficult Daughters’, you have hit on the fact that from the point of view of men (and women dependent on them in a traditional family hierarchy) girls who think for themselves are ‘difficult.’ I know, I’m a difficult daughter.
P.S.
Anita Desai deserved the Man Booker for ‘Clear Light of Day.’ And Arundhati Roy gave us one of the most beautiful books ever – not least for having created a character who chooses to remain mute. So many women have been mute for so long. Let them speak now.
Prithvi · 5:15 pm 18th Mar 10 ·
This is getting away from the interview, but Maryanne your comment about writing in English being related to MK’s notion of educated women having ‘messed up’ emotional lives made me remember this passage. It’s from Coetzee’s ‘Diary of a Bad Year’ (‘On the Mother Tongue’):
***
Perhaps it is so that all languages are, finally, foreign languages, alien to our animal being. But in a way that is, precisely, inarticulate, inarticulable, English does not feel to me like a resting place, a home. It just happens to be a language over whose resources I have achieved some mastery.
My case can certainly not be unique. Among middle-class Indians, for example, there must be many who have done their schooling in English, who routinely speak English in the workplace and at home (throwing in the odd local locution for colouring), who command other languages only imperfectly, yet who, as they listen to themselves speak or as they read what they have written, have the uneasy feeling that there is something false going on. (p 157)
***
Like C. says, I don’t think this is an uncommon experience, or unique to middle-class Indians; today’s world’s full of migrants who have to operate in second languages. I don’t see where these judgments about Indians writing in English are coming from. It sounds so mid-20th century… are people still saying these things? Being conscious about your English usage as an Indian (for example) is more a subjective feeling, isn’t it, of alienation? Maybe it’s embedded in bureaucracy though – e.g. IELTS tests, discriminatory immigration policies & workplace practices?
I think a separate issue to Indians and English is the label “difficult daughter”, which does sound oppressive, and like a man’s (a father’s) judgment – sexist, basically.
I agree with you that people should be able to use language any way they like. (Even if I can’t stand Americanisms like ‘go figure’ or Internet Americanisms like ‘ftw’ – I put that down to my linguistic snobbery, not a flaw in their language usage)…
Sukhmani · 1:46 am 19th Mar 10 ·
In my mind, ‘Indian’ writing in English and the notion of ‘difficult daughters’ are related to the extent that it is often upper middle-class, English educated Indian women who are perceived as both defying patriarchy, and jingoistic national idiom. The family as nation analogy is ubiquitous in commentary on postcolonial feminism. Therefore, in some ways, the use of Indian English is not a non-issue, but an embrace of a vision of the nation that lies between the extremes of Hindu fundamentalism and worship of the west. I sense a similar balancing act in the term ‘difficult daughters’ in that it poses a threat to the stability of the patriarchal family structure while not severing daughterly ties with the unit.
As for the issue of educated women and emotional mess, I would have to agree with Maryanne that this is a rather universal pre-feminism construct. What might make the Indian instance slightly more taboo, especially in the case of divorced women, is a society where the single female is rarely ’safe’ (physically and socially) without a man.